Cv32e40p sail 0.11

[karabambus]

Verified by running on DUT.

[karabambus]

Added comments for parameters that are schema-required but are not relevant to our core. I see there are multiple issues open across ACT4 and Sail repo. If you find it useful and not redundant I can open issue where I can track this parameters.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Updates the CV32E40P v2 Sail configuration to align with Sail 0.11 schema/behavior and to better reflect the DUT’s implemented privilege/memory/CSR behavior during reference-model comparison.

Changes:

• Expand/update Sail config fields (misaligned access policy, memory regions, reservation, max_time_to_wait, additional schema-required knobs).
• Refine reserved-behavior and CSR capability annotations for M-mode-only CV32E40P (no PMP/MMU/A/V, mtval hardwired to 0, etc.).
• Add RVMODEL_MTVEC_ALIGN to match the core’s mtvec base alignment requirement.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

File	Description
config/cores/cve4/cv32e40p-v2-rv32imcf/sail.json	Sail 0.11 config/schema updates + richer memory map and exception/reserved-behavior settings for the F-enabled variant
config/cores/cve4/cv32e40p-v2-rv32imc/sail.json	Same Sail 0.11 config/schema updates for the non-F variant
config/cores/cve4/cv32e40p-v2-rv32imc/rvmodel_macros.h	Define mtvec alignment (RVMODEL_MTVEC_ALIGN) for trap handler placement correctness

[jordancarlin]

LGTM, but I would like a review from @MikeOpenHWGroup before merging since he is more familiar with these cores.

[jordancarlin]

Added comments for parameters that are schema-required but are not relevant to our core. I see there are multiple issues open across ACT4 and Sail repo. If you find it useful and not redundant I can open issue where I can track this parameters.

This is a limitation of the Sail JSON schema (it requires all keys to be defined), and I don't think this is something that will be changing any time soon, so probably no need for an issue.

[MikeOpenHWGroup]

For the most part, the technical content LGTM as well. I have made a couple of minor comments on specific files, please have a look.

I also have a few comments about style:

1. There are multiple comment lines in the core json file that follow this pattern:

// SCHEMA-REQUIRED: cv32e40p has no <feature xxx>
// Value has no effect on DUT comparison.

It is not clear exactly what SCHEMA-REQUIRED means. I suspect it means, "this field in the json file is required by the ACT4 schema". Since this term is not mentioned in the ACT4 documentation it would be a good idea to add a comment field at the top of the json file explaining what SCHEMA-REQUIRED means and why it is needed.

2. Unless it is absolutely unavoidable, it is dangerous to explicitly reference RTL source code. Instead, a reference to the User Manual is more appropriate. For example, instead of:

// mtval is hardwired to 0 in cv32e40p — cv32e40p_cs_registers.sv:346,516.

it would be more appropriate to point the reader to the User Manual:

// mtval is hardwired to 0 in cv32e40p, see the CSR Descriptions chapter in the User Manual.